I have tested a number of lenses for use with the D1. The choices I made
for my uses are as follows:

Primes

Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D Micro

Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D EDIF

Nikkor 300mm f/4 AFS

TC-14e teleconverter

Zooms

Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS

Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR

During the course of deciding on a lens set that would fulfill my needs,
I owned and/or tested a fair number of lenses, including third-party lenses,
both prime and zoom. Impressions of some of these other lenses might be
of use to the person looking for a lens or lenses for use with a similar
set of needs. I shoot scenic, animals, flowers, macro, and have been known
to take the occasional snapshot or wedding picture as well. My choices have
been made with these needs and ultimate quality vs. price in mind.

General-purpose lenses

Many people want a lens that can be used as a do-it-all travel or general-use
lens. When I started with the D1, the first lens I chose was the 24-120mm
f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor, based on a recommendation from two people I respected.
This lens has a fairly wide range, from medium-wide to short telephoto,
and has a reasonably wide maximum aperture for a fairly bright viewfinder,
however, images from this lens are soft unless the lens is stopped down
to at least f/8. At f/11, the results are quite good, but of course the
depth of field at that aperture does not offer much subject isolation. In
addition, at the 24mm end there is significant barrel distortion, and I
was never satisfied with the images taken at the 120mm end for a number
of reasons. From around 28mm to about 105mm, the lens does a fairly good
job when stopped down to f/8-f/11 however.

Nikkor makes a lens that is in that very range, the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5.
This lens offers significantly better performance at all focal lengths and
apertures, is a faster lens at the long end, offers a decent macro mode
for those times when you want to focus closer, and overall is the general-purpose
zoom that I recommend using to anyone who asks. While it is not up to the
performance of the expensive AFS zooms, it has a wider focal-length range,
is very light, and costs in the neighborhood of $325 making it in my opinion
the ultimate choice for a general-purpose lens.

‘Normal’ zooms

You may have noticed that in my personal lens-list, I do not have a ‘normal’
zoom. I have however had several here. I tested two samples of the Tokina
28-80mm f/2.8 and owned until just recently a Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8D. The premiere
lens in this category is the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 AFS, and it is very good,
but it is large, heavy and extremely expensive. It is however very fast-focusing
(AFS motor), and offers exceptional contrast and detail. I was not willing
to carry this heavy a lens in this range, as I would still be changing lenses
a lot due to the fact that this range, while convenient, does not go quite
wide enough or long enough for my needs when shooting. When I decided that
the general-purpose lenses did not satisfy my needs for ultimate quality,
I started looking at the Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8. I compared it to the Nikkor
50mm f/1.4, which is the lens that I use for low-light and ‘normal’ range,
as well as the Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D. The Tokina meters a bit underexposed
in all but bright daylight, has a slight lack of contrast in comparison
to the Nikkor lenses, and is slightly undersaturated in color, plus the
color balance is slightly off requiring that all images be color-adjusted
in post-processing. It is quite soft at f/2.8 (more so than the 35-70/2.8D
Nikkor), and the flare and ghosting when a bright light source is in-frame
or just outside of the frame is heavy (this is improved by stopping down
the lens). Both samples of the lens illustrated the same characteristics,
and were ultimately sent back to the dealer.

The Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8D on the other hand, while not quite as detailed
or contrasty as the 50mm prime, was very good in all respects. It is still
soft at f/2.8, but not as soft as the Tokina. Contrast is excellent, and
as long as the hood is used it is fairly resistant to flare and ghosting.
The hood is less useful at the long end than it is at the wide end though.
The 35-70/2.8D is well-built, with a metal barrel, a very useful ‘macro’
mode that allows the lens to manually close-focus to under a foot at the
35mm end, and is quite sharp and detailed. The only detractions are the
relatively narrow range and the push-pull zoom design (which you do rapidly
get used to). It should be basically looked at as a somewhat slower 50mm
prime with a little extra range. The only reason why I ended up selling
this lens was that for my uses in the ‘normal’ range, I need both low-light
capabilities and extreme detail and clarity more often than I need the convenience
of the zoom, so I found myself using the 50mm and ‘foot-zooming’. The 50mm
f/1.8 is not a D-type lens, so matrix metering is not available with it,
plus the construction is less precise (although the optics are superb) so
I opted for the 50mm f/1.4D for my use.

Analyze your shooting style, and select lenses that
make sense for you.

There are several situations in which I generally shoot. I walk a lot
-- a minimum of 100-120 miles and sometimes as much as 180-200 miles per
month. There are times when I am certain as to which focal lengths I will
need, and other times when I may run into anything. Carrying the whole kit
with me is simply not an option due to weight alone, so I have set up my
kit in a way that allows me to carry a variety of focal lengths in several
different ways depending on the situations in which I might find myself.

When I want to travel as light as possible, but still need to be able
to shoot anything, I will carry the 24, 50, 105 and 180mm lenses. This allows
me to shoot wide, normal, portrait and medium tele as well as low light
and extreme close-focus and give up nothing in the way of quality, while
still carrying a lens set that weighs 5 lbs in total -- just 1 lb. over
the weight of the VR zoom by itself. The fact that the 24, 50 and 105 all
use 52mm filters means that I can use the same polarizer or other filters
on all three lenses also, which saves a lot of trouble and expense.

There are a number of situations when I need rapid compositional ability.
The primary reason why I sold the 17mm Tokina is that I find myself in situations
like this quite often, and switching back and forth between the 17, 24 and
50 in some of those cases is too time consuming (losing some shot opportunities),
and in a few cases is undesirable (shooting in sand or dust conditions where
a lens change is out of the question). In these situations, I carry the
17-35mm AFS. I sometimes will carry the 24mm along with the zoom for those
times when I have to shoot into the sun or a bright light source as the
prime is more resistant to flare and ghosting than the zoom. When weight
is not an issue I will carry the 17-35, the 50 and the VR zoom. This three-lens
set allows me to shoot 17mm to 400mm as well as in low light and is very
versatile, but the lens set is bulky and heavy at 6.5 lbs.

When the shooting situation will require long lenses only, and there is
a great possibility of having to shoot into deep shadow, I will carry both
the 300mm + TC-14e and the VR zoom. The VR is a very versatile lens, but
the AF speed is glacial even with the limiter on. This means that when shooting
anything that requires fast acquisition or tracking, the AFS prime is the
only real choice (e.g. using the VR for action or birds in flight is a crapshoot
-- you are far more likely to get the shot if you prefocus to the general
distance and use manual focus than if you use AF), but when the shot is
into deep shadow or the light is otherwise marginal, the VR really can get
the shot far more often. Shooting 1/200 at 400mm is nearly always possible
hand-held with the VR, and 1/125 is clean more often than not. I have gotten
clean shots at 1/13 sec. at 80mm with that lens too. Amazing. The 300mm
f/4 AFS is a most exceptional lens -- very fast-focusing, great contrast
and detailed. While it’s a little soft at f/4, by f/5.6 it is very, very
good. With the TC-14e, the AFS speed is maintained and the lens is a 420mm
f/5.6. With the AFS and the VR together, I can shoot action and reasonably
low light, from 80-400 on the zoom and either 300mm or 420mm with the prime,
and can hand-hold either lens, but the two together are quite expensive
and together weigh nearly 8.5 lbs.

When I am going to be shooting only long, do not foresee needing extremely
shallow depth of field, and want to travel as light as possible, I will
carry the VR lens alone. The only limitations of this lens are the lack
of focusing speed, the relatively small maximum aperture, and the 7.5 foot
minimum focus distance, but in many cases these are not critical and the
lens is xtremely convenient (plus the vibration reduction really does allow
at least a two-stop shooting advantage).

In other situations, when I am shooting long and will need very shallow
DOF, I carry both the 180mm and 300mm lenses. This adds a pound and a half,
and requires that I switch lenses, but the incredible quality of the 180mm
and the f/2.8 max. aperture makes it well worth it to me. The other thing
is that both the 180mm and 300mm primes will focus down to 5 feet (4.75
feet for the 300mm) allowing the lenses to be used for some extremely dramatic
closeup work.

Other shooting situations find me carrying a mixed complement of lenses.
I attempt to draw on my experience shooting in different situations to allow
me to choose the most efficient lens complement while carrying the least
amount of weight. Over the course of a 10 mile hike at altitude, or even
a 10 mile hike near sea level, keeping the weight down is a very good thing
as I’m sure you know. Besides, you do sometimes have to carry food, water,
and occasionally spare clothing so unless you like feeling like a pack mule
(been there...), planning for weight is a necessity.

A Summary of my lens complement

Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D AFS: A versatile wide-angle
zoom that offers extremely fast focusing, focuses as close as 4” in front
of the front element (under 11” from the film plane), is nearly as good
as the 24mm prime lens except for the flare and ghosting issue, and at 35mm
is definitely as good as the prime (although not as fast as the f/2 prime).
The distortion at 17mm and 20mm is very low, especially for a zoom lens,
and is essentially gone by 24mm. The only issues of note with this lens
are the tendency to flare when shooting into a bright light source and the
resulting green ghost, the size and weight, and the cost. Stopping down
to f/5.6 results in extremely sharp images, and shooting without a filter
reduces (but does not eliminate) the green ghost when shooting into the
sun.

Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D: A very small, sharp
lens with excellent contrast, low distortion, and at 9.5 oz. it is a featherweight
that is easy to carry along anywhere. The perfect wide angle complement
to the 50mm f/1.4D as it uses the same 52mm filters. The lens is nearly
at optimum performance by f/4, and from f/5 to f/16 it is hard to find fault
with it.

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D: A very small (9 oz.),
extremely sharp normal lens for low-light work and general photography.
The perspective is natural, and detail is exceptional. The lens focuses
down to 1.5 feet and is clean at f/2. By f/2.8, it is hard to find fault
with the sharpness of the lens, making it ideal for low-light situations
such as available light close-portrait, museums, etc. The lens is fairly
resistant to flare, and is quite inexpensive. I wouldn’t be without one.

Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D Micro: Capable of 1:1
magnification without extension tubes or closeup lenses, the 105 Micro can
handle everything from medium-length portrait work to in-your-face insect
photography, while leaving a reasonable working distance between the subject
and the camera (so it is possible to light the subject without the camera
or lens occluding the light). The lens is very sharp -- for portrait work
it is possibly too sharp in some cases, as every hair and blemish on a model’s
face will be visible. For closeups of flowers, insects, and other close
work it is hard to imagine a better lens... the 200mm is too hard to work
with hand-held and the 60mm does not allow enough working space at 1:1 (although
the 60mm is arguably the sharper lens). The only thing this lens does not
do quite as well is work at infinity focus -- it is somewhat soft in comparison
to closer work as it has of course been optimized for near-field focusing.
I try to limit it’s use to under 25-30 feet for this reason.

Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D EDIF: Quite possibly
the perfect medium telephoto lens. Very sharp from close-focus (5 ft.) to
infinity, smooth defocused areas, excellent isolation of the subject at
f/2.8 (where it is just slightly soft in comparison to performance at f/4
or smaller apertures), light, small and reasonably fast-focusing for a non-AFS
telephoto. From f/5.6 to f/16 there is literally nothing to fault about
the quality. From f/4 to f/5.6, you can detect a trace of softness when
compared to the performance from f/5.6 on, but I have no qualms about using
the lens at f/4. Shadow detail is very good, and corner-to-corner sharpness
at infinity focus is amazing. I love this lens, especially for medium-distance
portrait and for those times when I want to carry a light, fast telephoto.

Nikkor
300mm f/4 AFS: With its AFS motor, this lens locks on the subject
quickly and tracks with precision. At 4lbs., it is not light, but it is
able to be used hand-held and is a superb lens for action and other situations
where rapid acquisition and tracking is necessary (e.g. catching a hummingbird
in flight). It is a little soft at f/4, but stopping down to f/5.6 allows
performance that is all I could ask for (and the loss of detail at f/4 is
so slight that I have no qualms about shooting the lens wide open). Excellent
contrast, smooth defocused areas (9-bladed aperture), and it focuses down
to 4.75 feet for some truly amazing closeups. In combination with the TC-14e
teleconverter, you have a 420mm f/5.6 lens with the AFS motor intact, and
it is usable at f/5.6, although stopping down to f/8 gets the best performance
out of the combination. The 300/4 has the A/M-M focusing switch, so you
can do manual override with AF enabled for the best of both techniques.
A fantastic lens... the only thing wrong with it is the tripod collar (which
flexes) but by wedging minicell foam or other brace between the lens body
and the top of the tripod mount that problem can be gotten around.

Nikkor
80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR: Sporting VR (vibration reduction, Nikon’s
image stabilization system), the PR literature claims that you can shoot
three-stops under what you could normally shoot hand-held. At the shorter
focal lengths this is most certainly true. I have gotten sharp 1/13 sec.
exposures at 80mm, and at 1/8 sec. the yield is over 50%, which is truly
amazing. By over 50% I mean that the shots are completely usable, and in
many cases the shots are nearly as sharp as if I had taken them at 1/100
sec. If the lens was lighter (it weighs 4 lbs.) and had an AFS motor, it
would be the perfect lens (just dreaming). You can certainly count on a
stop-and-a-half at 400mm with nearly 100% yield, and the yield at two stops
under the reciprocal of the focal length is quite good. Beyond that it’s
a crapshoot. The optics are very good, although there is a little less contrast
than the 300/4 prime and a little more tendency to flare. The convenience
of being able to carry one lens that can shoot from 80mm to 400mm has to
be experienced... it’s a great one-lens solution for telephoto. The only
limitations are the slow AF (it has a locking MF/AF ring so it can be rapidly
switched to MF, like the 105 Micro, without having to switch the camera),
the lack of ability to do manual adjustments when AF is enabled (necessary
when shooting through trees), the minimum focusing distance of 7.5 feet
(not a problem at the longer lengths, but somewhat limiting at the 80mm
end), and did I mention the slow AF? Positively glacial... but I’m spoiled
by the speed of the AFS prime. It’s not bad for a mechanically focused zoom
of this length.